REED v. STATE
2016 OK CR 10
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- Robert Lee Reed was convicted by a Tulsa County jury of Lewd Molestation (21 O.S. § 1123) and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment with 3 years post‑imprisonment supervision; must serve at least 85% before parole eligibility.
- The prosecution admitted a videotaped forensic interview of the child victim (State's Exhibit 12); the victim also testified at trial and SANE exam findings corroborated abuse.
- During deliberations the jury requested playback capability; the court provided a TV/laptop so the jury could view the DVD in the jury room.
- Reed did not object at trial to the jury taking the DVD into deliberations; appellate review was therefore limited to plain‑error review.
- Reed raised three claims on appeal: (1) plain error in allowing unfettered jury access to the videotaped forensic interview; (2) trial court abused discretion by refusing a jury instruction that conviction would require sex‑offender registration; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the jury viewing the DVD.
- The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence: it held the videotaped forensic interview qualified as recorded testimony (requiring Martin/§894 safeguards) but any error was harmless; SORA registration is collateral and not a salient sentencing feature; no Strickland prejudice shown.
Issues
| Issue | Reed's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing the jury to take and replay the victim's forensic interview during deliberations was reversible error | Jury had "unfettered access," likely repeatedly replayed the recorded interview, causing undue emphasis | The recording was an exhibit and trial court discretion permitted it; any error was harmless given strong corroborating evidence | The Court held the interview equated to recorded testimony and should not have gone to the jury without meeting §894/Martin safeguards, but the error was harmless — no relief granted |
| Whether jury should have been instructed that conviction would require sex‑offender registration | Jurors should know the practical consequences of conviction (registration) to fully evaluate punishment impact | Registration under SORA is collateral, not part of the statutory punishment range, so no instruction required | Denied — SORA requirements are collateral and not a salient feature of sentencing requiring jury instruction |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury having the DVD in deliberations | Counsel's failure enabled the jury's unlimited access and prejudiced the defense | Even if performance was deficient, Reed cannot show Strickland prejudice because the error was harmless and conviction was strongly supported | Denied — no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Whether the Martin/§894 procedure applies to videotaped forensic interviews of children | (Implicit in Reed's arguments about playback) | Forensic interviews with oath‑like assurances and testimonial attributes should be treated as recorded testimony | Court held such forensic interviews that possess principal attributes of in‑court testimony are equivalent to recorded testimony and require §894/Martin safeguards before replay during deliberations |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. State, 747 P.2d 316 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (videotaped testimony may not go into jury room; trial court must bring jury into open court and apply safeguards before replaying recorded testimony)
- Davis v. State, 885 P.2d 665 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (distinguishing taped testimony from taped exhibits; exhibits may go with jury)
- Cannon v. State, 904 P.2d 89 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (taped testimony rules reiterated)
- Stouffer v. State, 147 P.3d 245 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (reaffirming distinction between taped testimony and exhibits)
- Levering v. State, 315 P.3d 392 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (plain error standard articulated)
- Starkey v. Okla. Dep’t of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013) (addressing retroactive application of SORA amendments and Ex Post Facto concerns)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)